Author Topic: Impeachment  (Read 277192 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #575 on: October 22, 2019, 11:46:31 PM »
Reports: Democrats Forced to Extend Impeachment Proceedings into Christmas Season
EDWIN MORA  22 Oct 2019

House Democrats’ effort to impeach U.S. President Donald Trump is taking longer than they expected, some news outlets reported this week.

Democrats are reportedly expected to delay a vote on articles of impeachment until after Thanksgiving, possibly into the Christmas season. Many of them hoped to impeach Trump by Thanksgiving, but they are unlikely to abide by that timeline.

On Monday, CNN acknowledged:

House Democrats are facing a time crunch to quickly wrap up their investigation into allegations President Donald Trump abused his office in pushing Ukraine to probe his political rivals, prompting growing expectations that votes on impeaching Trump could slip closer to the end of the year.

Some Democrats had hoped that a narrow probe — focused on whether Trump put on ice efforts to bolster relations with Ukraine and provide US military aid to the country until it carried through with a political favor — could conclude swiftly, with a potential vote to impeach Trump by Thanksgiving.

But that has proven to be more complicated than it initially seemed, according to multiple Democratic lawmakers and sources.

CNN listed several reasons for the delay, including having to chase down new leads and the rescheduling of several witnesses, adding:

Plus, there are several more time-consuming steps as part of the probe, potentially trying to bring in big names like former national security adviser John Bolton, then holding public hearings before a report they’re expected to write with recommendations — all before any votes in the House.

The New York Times also reported that Democrats are slowing down their impeachment timeline, noting:

House Democrats have resigned themselves to the likelihood that impeachment proceedings against President Trump will extend into the Christmas season, as they plan a series of public hearings intended to make the simplest and most devastating possible public case in favor of removing Mr. Trump.


After a complicated web of damaging revelations about the president has emerged from private depositions unfolding behind closed doors, Democratic leaders have now begun plotting a full-scale — and probably more time-consuming — effort to lay out their case in a set of high-profile public hearings on Capitol Hill.

Their goal is to convince the public — and if they can, more Republicans — that the president committed an impeachable offense when he demanded that Ukraine investigate his political rivals.

So far, House Democrats pursuing the impeachment probe have failed to hold any public hearings. They also refuse to release the transcripts of the witnesses’ testimony. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the leader of the impeachment probe, said he would hold public hearings and release the transcripts but would not say when.

Echoing the House impeachment lawyer, Schiff indicated that the impeachment probe might extend beyond Ukraine, a move that would render the proceedings more time-consuming.
 
On Tuesday, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) maintained that Democrats still hope to have the probe completed before Thanksgiving.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/22/reports-democrats-forced-to-extend-impeachment-proceedings-into-christmas-season/

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19094
  • loco like a fox
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #576 on: October 23, 2019, 04:38:47 AM »
He's going down. He's going down, down, down.

Sure he will, this time.  This time it's different.  This time he really is going down.   ::)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39477
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #577 on: October 23, 2019, 04:58:48 AM »
He's going down. He's going down, down, down.

Settle down w your gay fantasies about Trump .   ;D

JustPlaneJane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4456
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #578 on: October 23, 2019, 09:45:08 AM »
Well....this is going to change things quite a bit for the crooked Democrats.

https://www.libertybell.com/breaking-huge-ukrainian-money-laundering-scheme-uncovered-guess-who-was-involved/


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #579 on: October 23, 2019, 10:06:15 AM »
He's going down. He's going down, down, down.

Yes, this time they really got him. For what you don't know.  Again. 

JustPlaneJane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4456
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #580 on: October 23, 2019, 10:10:01 AM »
Yes, this time they really got him. For what you don't know.  Again. 

The whistleblower hoax is less credible than any story Michael Avenatti ever made up.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #581 on: October 23, 2019, 10:24:39 AM »
The whistleblower hoax is less credible than any story Michael Avenatti ever made up.

Yep.


SOMEPARTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15877
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #583 on: October 23, 2019, 12:13:54 PM »
Rep. Val Demmings, Florida Democrat, told reporters Wednesday the Republican claims were unfounded.

“This investigation is being conducted by the Intelligence Committee and members of the Republican side were there if they chose to be during the depositions and they certainly were permitted to ask whatever questions they wanted to. They have access to transcripts and information that were available.”





Uh huh...

Anything but total transparency after the Russia hoax is a joke. If the shoe was on the other foot it would NOT be okay. Difference is the press runs cover for the left.

Maybe get somebody other than a well documented liar to run it as well.

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 57652
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #584 on: October 23, 2019, 03:52:24 PM »
Rep. Val Demmings, Florida Democrat, told reporters Wednesday the Republican claims were unfounded.

“This investigation is being conducted by the Intelligence Committee and members of the Republican side were there if they chose to be during the depositions and they certainly were permitted to ask whatever questions they wanted to. They have access to transcripts and information that were available.”


And which Republicans were there and asking questions?
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 57652
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #585 on: October 23, 2019, 06:36:16 PM »
I don't know. They are your people.
Lmao!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #586 on: October 25, 2019, 06:51:01 PM »
Newt Gingrich: Pathetic Trump impeachment inquiry is falling apart – What are Pelosi and Dems afraid of?
By Newt Gingrich | Fox News

Newt Gingrich: Why do Pelosi and Schiff feel they have to make an impeachment case in secret?
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich weighs in on why Democrats have chosen to have closed-door impeachment hearings.

Watching the unconstitutional House Democratic impeachment process – which Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., has described as a “partisan clown show” – you have to ask yourself: What are the Democrats afraid of?

If they had a good case, the Democrats would be proudly putting it out in the open so all Americans could learn the facts that would convince them to support impeaching the duly elected president of the United States.

In fact, the Democrats seem to have a pathetic case that keeps falling apart.

After the Mueller investigation failed to find President Trump guilty, the Democrats could have turned to legislating and fighting over real issues, like health care.

After all, in 1998 we were faced with Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s report, which charged that President Bill Clinton was guilty on 11 counts including perjury, which is a felony.

If Mueller’s report had used the word “guilty” 11 times the Republicans would have been forced to join in a serious investigation of the president.

However, when Mueller did not use the word “guilty” even once, the need for an investigation ended.

Then, as the Democrats squirmed under the attacks of their activists who were determined that President Trump should be impeached just for being President Trump, they found a new excuse to investigate.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. – who was consistently dishonest and wrong for two years of Russian collusion stories – suddenly had a whistleblower who was anti-Trump.

The Democrats were ecstatic. They now had an excuse to make their hardcore, left-wing, anti-Trump partisans happy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was so eager to appease the left that she announced the investigation before Democrats even had the whistleblower’s report and before they had seen the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with the new, reform-focused Ukrainian president.

The whistleblower was going to be the centerpiece of the case against Trump. Except it turned out he had met with Schiff’s people before submitting his letter. Then it turned out he had no firsthand knowledge of the items he was complaining about.

Then it turned out there were a number of factual falsehoods in the letter. Then it turned out the whistleblower was a Democrat who disliked Trump. Then it turned out he had worked with then-Vice President Joe Biden in the White House.

Now there are reports that after five different disclosures undermining the whistleblower’s credibility, the House Democrats may not even call him to testify.


This means that the person who was the excuse for the whole investigation is now so discredited that House Democrats know he would be an embarrassment and would make even more of a mockery of their phony impeachment effort.

In some ways, the collapse of the whistleblower is reminiscent of the collapse of the attacks on now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Big opening smear, wildly hostile headlines, excited anti-Trump talking heads, and then the balloon loses air, the case collapses and it is on to the next dishonest smear.

The secret nature of the Schiff kangaroo court really means we know nothing for certain about any of the witnesses or their testimony.

Consider the case of Bill Taylor, a very reputable senior diplomat who is now the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

As Marc Thiessen reported: “Cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF. Yet somehow what appear to be cellphone photos of his prepared statement were leaked to the news media.

Thiessen added: “But the full transcript of Taylor’s deposition – including his answers to questions from Republicans challenging his accusations – remains under lock and key in that SCIF. The president’s counsel is not allowed to see it, much less be present at the deposition to cross-examine the witness. So, Democrats are leaking derogatory information about the president, while restricting public access to potentially exculpatory information, all while denying him the right to see or challenge testimony against him.”

The Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry is an un-American, unconstitutional process that violates the due process clause of the Bill of Rights

Yet despite the selective leaks by the Democrats, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said that "in 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe [R-Texas] destroy Taylor's whole argument.”

Yet McCarthy was gagged by the Democrats’ secrecy rules. "We can't really talk about it," he said.

Ratcliffe flatly told Fox News there were new details brought to light but said there was nothing that was "worthy of impeachment."

Ratcliffe went on to say: "The one thing that you find out in this process is all this information is just like that whistleblower ...  everything is second-, third-, and fourth-hand information.”

The Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry is an un-American, unconstitutional process that violates the due process clause of the Bill of Rights. As we see in Iowa, accused murderers who are illegal immigrants are being granted more protection of their right to due process than the president of the United States.

Every House Democrat must be made to bear the burden of supporting this kangaroo court “partisan clown show.”

Every House Democrat should be asked: “What are you afraid of that you can’t let the American people see the facts and decide for themselves?”

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/newt-gingrich-pathetic-trump-impeachment-inquiry-is-falling-apart-heres-surprising-reason-why

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #587 on: October 29, 2019, 02:12:34 PM »
Dems introduce resolution formalizing impeachment inquiry procedures
By Gregg Re | Fox News

Former deputy national press secretary for the DNC Jose Aristimuno defends House Democrats' impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a resolution to formalize their impeachment inquiry and adopt rules to govern the proceedings, following sustained complaints by congressional Republicans and the White House that the inquiry hasn't followed past precedent and violates the president's due process rights.

But, illustrating the balancing act involved as the 2020 election cycle gets started, Democrats have adamantly denied that the document is an "impeachment resolution," perhaps out of concern for how that label would play in more moderate swing districts.

The resolution directs the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees to "continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump."

Republicans, however, have countered that there is no "existing" impeachment inquiry because the House has not voted to open one as it did during the Clinton and Nixon impeachments -- and Tuesday's resolution does not explicitly open the probe, either.

READ DEMS' FULL RESOLUTION FORMALIZING IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

The document instead formally specifies that ranking Republicans in the minority on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees (Reps. Doug Collins and Devin Nunes, respectively) will have the authority, with the concurrence of committee chairs in the majority, to subpoena witnesses and compel their testimony -- a major demand that the White House and top Republicans had made in recent weeks.

If the chair does not consent, the minority can appeal to the full committee. It is common in other proceedings for committee chairs to essentially have veto authority over subpoenas sought by ranking minority members.

Nunes: Every day is a new conspiracy theoryVideo
The resolution also authorizes the Intelligence Committee to conduct an "open hearing or hearings" in which minority Republicans have equal time to question witnesses.

And, after that hearing is concluded, "to allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given."

GOP SUGGESTS RESOLUTION WON'T CHANGE THEIR MINDS ON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

The resolution also directs the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the other committees, to prepare a report on its findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually write any articles of impeachment. In response to GOP complaints about Democrats' selective leaks of opening statements and depositions, the document also authorizes the public release of testimony transcripts, with only sensitive or classified information being redacted.

There is no timeline given for the impeachment inquiry to conclude. The House Rules Committee, which is the gateway for most measures in the House, will meet Wednesday at 3 p.m. ET to prepare the resolution for the House floor. The full House will debate and vote on the measure Thursday morning, with a vote expected by midday.

Just before the resolution was filed, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told Fox News flatly on Tuesday that “this is not an impeachment resolution.”

He did not answer when asked if he was concerned about the public perception of that term.

Former Bill Clinton campaign manager James Carville says the Trump administration is not prepared for what lies ahead; reaction and analysis on 'Outnumbered.'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also insisted Monday night, “It’s not an impeachment resolution."

Four Democratic committee chairs -- Reps. Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Eliot L. Engel, and Carolyn Maloney -- said in a statement Tuesday that the "resolution provides rules for the format of open hearings in the House Intelligence Committee, including staff-led questioning of witnesses, and it authorizes the public release of deposition transcripts ... [it] establishes procedures for the transfer of evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and it sets forth due process rights for the president and his counsel in the Judiciary Committee proceedings."

They added: “The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a president who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election. Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn firsthand about the president’s misconduct.”

“It’s not an impeachment resolution."

— House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Earlier in the day, the top Republicans on the House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into the president blasted the investigation as “illegitimate” and a “sham," signaling that the new procedures wouldn't change their minds.

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Nunes, R-Calif., Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul, R-Texas, penned a letter to Rep. James McGovern, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, who announced his panel would take up an impeachment procedure resolution on Wednesday to “ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward.”

Nunes, Jordan and McCaul accused McGovern, D-Mass., of not giving enough time for Republican members to review the resolution ahead of the vote, and they continued to blast the inquiry as a whole.

“Under House rules you championed at the beginning of this Congress, major legislation is required to be posted 72 hours in advance of a vote,” they wrote. “Yet, here, on the gravest and most solemn work the House can do, you are forcing the House to consider a resolution with text that is still not available two days before the vote.”

Republican Rep. Doug Collins calls the upcoming House vote to formalize the Trump impeachment process a 'sham' to cover Democrats' mishandling of the investigation.

“Without text, we know nothing about the Democrats’ intended impeachment process. Your website describes the resolution as ‘directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigation,’” they continued. “Chairman Schiff does not need a resolution to continue leaking selective facts from his basement bunker.”

They added, “We can only assume, therefore, that this resolution is necessary to allow Democrats to subvert the ordinary legislative process.”

Still, the Democrats' resolution appeared to address the White House's complaints from earlier this month, when it vowed not to participate in the inquiry.

SCHIFF SAYS 'WE' DIDN'T TALK TO WHISTLEBLOWER -- THEN BACKTRACKS

Democrats, the White House complained, had not permitted Republicans in the minority to issue subpoenas, contradicting the "standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries."

The White House had argued: "In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-introduce-resolution-formalizing-impeachment-inquiry

Moontrane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
  • a Harris administration, together with Joe Biden
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #588 on: October 29, 2019, 03:17:52 PM »
Dems introduce resolution formalizing impeachment inquiry procedures
By Gregg Re | Fox News

Former deputy national press secretary for the DNC Jose Aristimuno defends House Democrats' impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a resolution to formalize their impeachment inquiry and adopt rules to govern the proceedings, following sustained complaints by congressional Republicans and the White House that the inquiry hasn't followed past precedent and violates the president's due process rights.

But, illustrating the balancing act involved as the 2020 election cycle gets started, Democrats have adamantly denied that the document is an "impeachment resolution," perhaps out of concern for how that label would play in more moderate swing districts.

The resolution directs the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees to "continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump."

Republicans, however, have countered that there is no "existing" impeachment inquiry because the House has not voted to open one as it did during the Clinton and Nixon impeachments -- and Tuesday's resolution does not explicitly open the probe, either.

READ DEMS' FULL RESOLUTION FORMALIZING IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

The document instead formally specifies that ranking Republicans in the minority on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees (Reps. Doug Collins and Devin Nunes, respectively) will have the authority, with the concurrence of committee chairs in the majority, to subpoena witnesses and compel their testimony -- a major demand that the White House and top Republicans had made in recent weeks.

If the chair does not consent, the minority can appeal to the full committee. It is common in other proceedings for committee chairs to essentially have veto authority over subpoenas sought by ranking minority members.

Nunes: Every day is a new conspiracy theoryVideo
The resolution also authorizes the Intelligence Committee to conduct an "open hearing or hearings" in which minority Republicans have equal time to question witnesses.

And, after that hearing is concluded, "to allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given."

GOP SUGGESTS RESOLUTION WON'T CHANGE THEIR MINDS ON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

The resolution also directs the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the other committees, to prepare a report on its findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually write any articles of impeachment. In response to GOP complaints about Democrats' selective leaks of opening statements and depositions, the document also authorizes the public release of testimony transcripts, with only sensitive or classified information being redacted.

There is no timeline given for the impeachment inquiry to conclude. The House Rules Committee, which is the gateway for most measures in the House, will meet Wednesday at 3 p.m. ET to prepare the resolution for the House floor. The full House will debate and vote on the measure Thursday morning, with a vote expected by midday.

Just before the resolution was filed, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told Fox News flatly on Tuesday that “this is not an impeachment resolution.”

He did not answer when asked if he was concerned about the public perception of that term.

Former Bill Clinton campaign manager James Carville says the Trump administration is not prepared for what lies ahead; reaction and analysis on 'Outnumbered.'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also insisted Monday night, “It’s not an impeachment resolution."

Four Democratic committee chairs -- Reps. Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Eliot L. Engel, and Carolyn Maloney -- said in a statement Tuesday that the "resolution provides rules for the format of open hearings in the House Intelligence Committee, including staff-led questioning of witnesses, and it authorizes the public release of deposition transcripts ... [it] establishes procedures for the transfer of evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and it sets forth due process rights for the president and his counsel in the Judiciary Committee proceedings."

They added: “The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a president who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election. Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn firsthand about the president’s misconduct.”

“It’s not an impeachment resolution."

— House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Earlier in the day, the top Republicans on the House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into the president blasted the investigation as “illegitimate” and a “sham," signaling that the new procedures wouldn't change their minds.

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Nunes, R-Calif., Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul, R-Texas, penned a letter to Rep. James McGovern, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, who announced his panel would take up an impeachment procedure resolution on Wednesday to “ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward.”

Nunes, Jordan and McCaul accused McGovern, D-Mass., of not giving enough time for Republican members to review the resolution ahead of the vote, and they continued to blast the inquiry as a whole.

“Under House rules you championed at the beginning of this Congress, major legislation is required to be posted 72 hours in advance of a vote,” they wrote. “Yet, here, on the gravest and most solemn work the House can do, you are forcing the House to consider a resolution with text that is still not available two days before the vote.”

Republican Rep. Doug Collins calls the upcoming House vote to formalize the Trump impeachment process a 'sham' to cover Democrats' mishandling of the investigation.

“Without text, we know nothing about the Democrats’ intended impeachment process. Your website describes the resolution as ‘directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigation,’” they continued. “Chairman Schiff does not need a resolution to continue leaking selective facts from his basement bunker.”

They added, “We can only assume, therefore, that this resolution is necessary to allow Democrats to subvert the ordinary legislative process.”

Still, the Democrats' resolution appeared to address the White House's complaints from earlier this month, when it vowed not to participate in the inquiry.

SCHIFF SAYS 'WE' DIDN'T TALK TO WHISTLEBLOWER -- THEN BACKTRACKS

Democrats, the White House complained, had not permitted Republicans in the minority to issue subpoenas, contradicting the "standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries."

The White House had argued: "In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-introduce-resolution-formalizing-impeachment-inquiry

They’re considering thinking about contemplating if they should wonder about a resolution.  :D

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #589 on: October 29, 2019, 04:17:26 PM »
They’re considering thinking about contemplating if they should wonder about a resolution.  :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

Thin Lizzy

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18406
  • It’s all a fraud
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #590 on: October 29, 2019, 05:02:31 PM »
They’re considering thinking about contemplating if they should wonder about a resolution.  :D

Has there ever been a better advertisement for limited government?



Slapper

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4298
  • Vincit qui se vincit
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #591 on: October 30, 2019, 10:52:01 AM »
Democrats are thinking.

Spot the oxymoron.

Slapper

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4298
  • Vincit qui se vincit
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #592 on: October 30, 2019, 10:53:51 AM »
Folks, inquiry is going to go nowhere.

Schiff will become America's most hated scum bag, with Pelosi a close second.

All they're trying to do is pressure Trump into resigning like Nixon. Problem is they got nothing on him. All parties know it.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #593 on: October 31, 2019, 06:22:51 PM »
DOJ Clears Trump Less Than 24 Hours After Pelosi's Impeachment Announcement
By Joe Setyon
Published September 25, 2019

The Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it opted not to investigate President Donald Trump over a controversial phone call he had in July with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The news came hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California announced the start of an official impeachment probe.

“The actions of the Trump presidency revealed the dishonorable fact of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” Pelosi told reporters on Tuesday from the Capitol Building, according to ABC News.

Pelosi cited the Ukraine controversy in her brief statement about impeachment.

Prior to the Wednesday release of the transcript of the call, Trump critics claimed the president was withholding $400 million in aid from Ukraine as a bargaining chip he was using to get Ukraine to investigate past activities of Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden’s son.

The transcript released by the White House does not mention the aid, which was eventually released to Ukraine in September.

Investigators looked into the call to see whether Trump had sought a sort of campaign contribution from Ukraine by asking Zelensky to probe the family of a political opponent, and decided there was no basis for a criminal investigation, The Washington Times reported.

The Department of Justice’s Criminal Division “reviewed the official record of the call and determined, based on the facts and applicable law, that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told HuffPost for an article published Wednesday.

She said all “relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion, and the Department has concluded the matter.”

A legal opinion from Steven Engel, assistant attorney general at the Office of Legal Counsel, further explained the decision.

Engel cited the whistleblower complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General from an intelligence official who took issue with Trump’s phone call.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire has thus far refused to reveal the contents of the complaint to lawmakers, though the White House is reportedly preparing to release a redacted version of the complaint anyway.

“According to the ICIG, statements made by the President during the call could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of the campaign-finance laws,” Engel wrote in his memorandum, which was written earlier this month but only released to the public this week.

“In the ICIG’s view, the complaint addresses an ‘urgent concern’ for purposes of triggering statutory procedures that require expedited reporting of agency misconduct to the congressional intelligence committees. Under the applicable statute, if the ICIG transmits such a complaint to the DNI, the DNI has seven days to forward it to the intelligence committees.”

So does the Trump administration have a legal obligation to share the contents of the complaint with lawmakers? The DOJ says no.

“The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the memo reads.

“Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence community complainant received secondhand. The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of ‘urgent concern’ that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees.”

“We conclude that it does not. The alleged misconduct is not an ‘urgent concern’ within the meaning of the statute because it does not concern ‘the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity’ under the authority of the DNI.”

“That phrase includes matters relating to intelligence activities subject to the DNI’s supervision, but it does not include allegations of wrongdoing arising outside of any intelligence activity or outside the intelligence community itself,” the memo adds.

According to Kupec, Trump never asked Attorney General William Barr to discuss with Ukrainian officials anything relating to the Biden family.

“The president has not spoken with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything related to former Vice President Biden or his son,” she said. “The president has not asked the attorney general to contact the Ukraine — on this or any other matter.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/doj-clears-trump-less-24-hours-pelosis-impeachment-announcement/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=PostBottomSharingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons&fbclid=IwAR0eQgCMCqv661W1hBuVspqYGw4VK4FqwQcGCUBCGxt5_LBphFtpELiCDiA

JustPlaneJane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4456
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #594 on: October 31, 2019, 07:16:43 PM »
Today the Democrats guaranteed a second term for President Donald Trump.

And a two term presidency for Donald Trump Jr.

Moontrane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
  • a Harris administration, together with Joe Biden
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #595 on: October 31, 2019, 07:39:08 PM »
Today the Democrats guaranteed a second term for President Donald Trump.

And a two term presidency for Donald Trump Jr.

Trump Jr. is just a businessman with no political experience.  He'd never get the nomination.   :D

JustPlaneJane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4456
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #596 on: October 31, 2019, 08:09:54 PM »
Trump Jr. is just a businessman with no political experience.  He'd never get the nomination.   :D

2024 will be Donald Trump Jr. running against the winner of Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Mayor Pete Buttplug

An easy 8 years

SOMEPARTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15877
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #597 on: November 01, 2019, 11:33:04 AM »
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/no-further-discussion-talks-halt-between-whistleblower-lawyers-and-schiff-staff-amid-expectation-he-wont-testify


"The whistleblower whose complaint launched impeachment proceedings against President Trump is unlikely to testify to Congress, as talks have ceased between his legal team and committee leaders.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has overseen depositions in Democrats' impeachment proceeding, was initially eager for the whistleblower to testify before citing concern about the person being identified.

Republicans accuse Schiff, a California Democrat, of changing course to prevent inquiries into his staff's dealings with the whistleblower before he filed his Aug. 12 complaint to the Intelligence Community inspector general.

A source familiar with the discussions told the Washington Examiner that talks halted over potential testimony from the whistleblower and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first's claims."




But, but, but....you almost had him.  ???  ::)  :'(

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #598 on: November 01, 2019, 01:57:36 PM »
Note how there is no wall-to-wall coverage over the fact this is an entirely partisan impeachment attempt.  Not a single Republican vote for this, which is much different than what happened with Nixon and Clinton.  In fact, two Democrats voted against it. 


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #599 on: November 01, 2019, 01:58:53 PM »
Why are you posting this a month after it was relevant?

Because I just saw it.  And why is it irrelevant a month later??